The reason? Greenpeace is too much of a political lobby organisation.
Environmental lobbyist Greenpeace of New Zealand Inc. is too involved in political causes to register as a charity, the High Court has ruled.The New Zealand Herald is even more succinct:
Justice Paul Heath turned down an appeal last Friday that Greenpeace could register with the Charities Commission after the body rejected its 2010 application.
Justice Heath said Greenpeace’s political activities can’t be regarded as “merely ancillary” to its charitable purposes and that the commission was correct in disqualifying it for registration over the potentially illegal activities.
Though the pursuit of peace could be “worthy,” that didn’t necessarily make it charitable, he said.
“The commission was correct in holding that non-violent, but potentially illegal activities (such as trespass), designed to put (in the eyes of Greenpeace) objectionable activities into the public spotlight were an independent object disqualifying it from registration as a charitable entry,” Justice Heath said in his judgement.
“In qualitative terms, the charitable purposes of Greenpeace could be met without resort to the type of political activities that deny its right to registration.”
Greenpeace New Zealand's political activities mean it cannot register as a charity, the High Court has decided.Ouch. That has GOT to hurt.
Actually, I think the idea has merit. In the Netherlands and EUnion-wide we have far too many NGO's posing as charities, but in actuality shaping policy and setting agendas, often lavishly subsidized by the government to do so. Here in the Netherlands we have Oxfam-Novib and ICCO, between them receiving the best part of a billion euros in subsidies to tell us what shitty human beings we are for, amongst others, driving cars, using electricity, eating meat and refusing to believe the climate-hype. And to tell out MP's that 'something must be done', legislation-wise. Wouldn't it be grand if some independent agency kicked their status as a 'charity' in the shitter, because they've become too political?
With regard to Greenpeace, Anthony Watts asks: 'With the way they operate, can the rest of the world be far behind?'. Richard North answers 'Yes', arguing that the MSM has so far ignored the news and, most likely, will continue to do so. Therefore, it will become a non-event, and Greenpeace will be able to contain the damage.
That may be true, quite possible will be true. But we can do something. We can keep the story going, we can pick it up and spread it. And maybe, just maybe the existence of this story, even here in the underground, will drip into the public consciousness, to the detriment of Greenpeace and her ilk.
Consider this post to be me doing my bit to make sure this happy story is spread far and wide. Pass it on, if you can.